It is plausible that, since the technology has not yet been perfected, there is no need to address the incipient legal problems until devices are used.
However, because of the very drastic reductions in personal liberty and privacy that such implantation represents, the legal ramifications need to be explored now.
The first part will explore the technology and discuss possible applications for microchip implantation into humans.
By encoding the microchip only with a single number, it might also carry, e.g., medical or criminal history. Although each such application has utility, privacy implications are ominous.
The level of intrusion necessitated by implantation may be objectionable, for there are many legal rights which would be impinged upon.
The debate over the legality of national identification cards is not new.
A system of national identification would entail a specific number for each person, a means for indicating or recording the number, and a registry.
Among the problematic issues in the introduction and regulation of a national identification card in Australia were: inaccurate, incomplete, irrelevant or misleading data and unauthorized disclosure of personal data.
The most serious overtone, however, was that "requiring each citizen to carry a government number is another step along the path of treating people as a 'national resource', which means government property, whereas the liberal democratic view has always been that the government is the people's 'property'."in response to pressures from Congressional representatives for action.
The Social Security number (SSN) is thought of as such an identifier.
Technically it is not because people may have more than one number or more than one person may have the same number.
Barbara Jordan called for a "simpler more fraud-resistant system for verifying authorization to work" in a speech to the Senate Immigration Subcommittee in 1994.